Delhi Court May 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) Vs. Smt. Iqbal Begum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3092
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This is a case of custodial death. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that the State/its functionaries have caused the death of the husband of the respondent Sayyed Masoom Ali, while he was in police custody. After recording clear finding of a custodial death, the learned Single Judge has granted an ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 3,50,000./- for the custodial death of respodnent's hsuband. The State has filed his appeal against the impugned judgment.2. Brief facts of the ease are that at 5.00 p.m. on 27-8-1994 the respondent's husband was summoned to the Police Station, Seelampur. Suffice it to say that during interrogation, it appears that the respondent's husband met his end. In other words, Sayyed Masoom Ali died while he was in police custody. A Magistrate inquiry under Section 176 of the code of Criminal Procedure was held and the Magistrate in his report arrived at definite finding that the death of Sayyed Masoom Ali occurred when he ...
Hotel Rajdoot Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]140STC32(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These writ petitions raising common question are disposed of by a common judgment and the facts are taken from W.P. (C) No. 1819 of 2003. The facts of W.P. (C) No. 7975 of 2002 are identical to W.P. (C) No. 1819 of 2003.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The dealers who are registered are required to file returns at such intervals as may be prescribed. Incidence and levy of tax are found in Chapter II of the Act. Chapter II of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') refers to incidence and, levy of tax. The period of turnover is prescribed in Rule 6. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 refers to the taxable turnover under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act and return period in relation to a dealer referred in Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. For the said purpose one will have to refer to Chapter V of the Rules wherein Rule 21 refers to the return period...
Amtrex Hitachi Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(116)LC570Tri(Delhi)
1. Common issue arising in these appeals is whether amendment to Section 61(2) make under Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2001 substituting the period of 'six months' by 'thirty days' will have retrospective effect in the sense that it will affect the goods which were warehoused before 1.6.2001. Prior to 1.6.2001, Section 61(2)(ii) of the Customs Act provided that if the warehoused goods specified in Section 61(1)(b) remained in the warehouse beyond a period of six months, interest at the specified rate is applicable for the period from the expiry of six months till the date of payment of duty on the warehoused goods. Under the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the view taken is that goods which were warehoused prior to 1.6.2001 will also be liable to pay interest from the expiry of thirty days or 1.6.2001, whichever is later. Commissioner has placed reliance on Board's Circular No. 473/12/2001 dated 11.10.2001 and Mumbai Custom House Public Notice No. 118/2001 dated 2...
J.C.T. Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC246
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. J.C.T. Electronics Ltd., is whether they are eligible to take back the Modvat credit in their books of account after the matter has been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, manufacturer of colour picture tubes, avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the colour picture tubes (CPTs); that a show cause notice dated 3.7.1997 was issued to them for denial of Modvat Credit on capital goods for the period from December 1996 to February 1997; that the Assistant Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 214/98 dated 18.5.98 disallowed the Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 1,52,68,140 which was reversed by them under protest on 20.5,98; that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 123/99 dated 1.4.999 allowed Credit of Rs. 1,40,53,140 to...
Tecumseh Products India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT225TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of compressor. They imported a consignment at Delhi declared to contain Terminals. The goods were described in the invoice as Terminal Model No. 39338. The Bill of Entry expanded the description of the goods as "connectors and contact elements for wires and cables". The consignment was valued at about Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The appellant's claimed classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8536.90, with the benefit of Notification No.17/2001 at SI. No. 300. The customs authorities took the view that the item should be correctly classified as a part of compressor under Tariff Heading 8414, without the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 17/2001. A charge of misdeclaration of goods with intent to evade payment of duty was also made. The impugned orders have confirmed those charges and have demanded duty, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty. The reason for taking the view that the goods are classifiable under 8414 is that the same wa...
Galaxy Earth Mover Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Icd
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC73
1. Appellant imported a consignment of Copper Wire Scrap from Germany.The customs authorities rejected the transaction value and assessed the goods based on London Metal Exchange (LME) Bulletine Price.2. The submission of the appellant is that the method of valuation adopted is entirely contrary to the settled law inasmuch as Customs Valuation Rules provides for assessment of goods at the transaction value. It is also pointed out that no material has been brought on record to show that the invoice price did not represent commercial transaction value. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant has relied on a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Prabhu Dayal Prem Chand v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2003 (156) ELT 922 in support of the contention that the revenue authorities should not have rejected the transaction value.3. We have perused the records and heard learned SDR also. Appellant's case is supported by the decision of this Tribunal. There was no ground for reje...
Indian Airlines Officers Assn. Vs. Govt. of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)SLJ275(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Source of dispute being common to all, the four captioned petitions, three filed by the employees working under Indian Airlines since beginning of their service and one filed by the employees working under Vayudoot Ltd. since taken over by Indian Airlines are being disposed of by a common judgment. Fortune of large number of employees of Indian Airlines and employees of Vayudoot Limited, absorbed in Indian Airlines are at stake.2. This is the second round of litigation. The first round was fought when WP(C) 931/98 and WP(C) 723/98 were filed in this Court by the employees of Vayudoot Limited. Those petitions were opposed by Indian Airlines and the officers and employees working under Indian Airlines since the very inception of their service.3. Petitioners in WP(C) 931/98 had claimed the following reliefs :-'In the circumstances mentioned above, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- a) Issue appropriate w...
Pranam Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT743; 2004(74)DRJ614; 2005(192)ELT138(Del); [2005]139STC226(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. This petition is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.02.2003 whereby the petitioner's application for reference under Section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax, Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'The DST Act) was rejected on the ground of limitation. The reference application was filed in respect of an order of the Appellate Tribunal passed on 17.12.2001 and served on the petitioner on 27.03.2002. The impugned order whereby the petitioner's reference application under Section 45(1) of the DST Act was rejected is challenged on the ground that delay in filing the reference application ought to have been condoned upon an application of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the DST Act was a specific law and which made special provisions for limitation, different from that provided by the L...
Walia Electronics Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT778; 2004(75)DRJ318
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. This petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Sales Tax dated 30.11.2000 whereby the petitioner's revision petition under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'The DST Act') was rejected on the ground that it was time-barred. The entire issue before this Court relates to the question of condensation of delay and in particular whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied in the case of a revision petition under Section 47 of the DST Act. The related issue is as to whether, if Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied, it was necessary that a formal written application seeking condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was necessary?3. Only the procedural facts are of relevance in this petition. An assessment order for the year 1987-88 was made on 06.03.1992 in respect of the petitioner, who is a registered dea...
Lakshmi Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT15TriDel
1. This is an application by M/s. Lakshmi Cement for waiver of pre-deposit of duty Rs. 12,20,868/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Sh. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Revenue has disallowed the Cenvat credit of the duty on Explosives used in the mines; that this issue has been referred to the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal as there are conflicting decisions from the different benches; that in such circumstances, they have made a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty and penalty. He relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Binani Zinc Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 514 (Ker.) wherein it has been held that in case of conflicting decisions, the petitioner has made out a prima facie for grant of stay. We also heard Sh. Vikas Kumar, learned S.D.R.3. In view of the decision of Kerala High Court in Binani Zinc Ltd. case (supra) and the fact that the issue involved in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »